2008 Supreme(SC) 144

2008(1) Supreme 632
Supreme Court of india
S.B. Sinha & Harjit Singh Bedi, JJ.
Sea Lark Fisheries — Petitioner
versus
United India Insurance Co. & Anr. — Respondents
Appeal (civil) 803 of 2008
Decided on : 30-01-2008

Headnote:Marine Insurance Act, 1963 – Section 41 - Appellant owner of a sea vessel obtained a loan from Canara Bank – At time of sanction of loan, Bank Obtained an insurance policy from respondent1 in respect of said vessel – Vessel was insured on 12.4.1979 to cover period form 12-4-1979 to 12-04-1980 – Policy was later on renewed for period 12-04-1980 and 11–4 –1981 – Vessel sunk on 21-07-1980 - Claim by Appellant – Repudiated by Respondent 1 – Suit by appellant – Decreed by Single Judge of High Court inter alia on premise that one “H” who was agent of insurer and who had filled in form, kept blanks therein for which Bank could not be held responsible - Appeal - Allowed by High Court – Appeal there against - Any information which could be furnished by Bank to insurer was only on basis of information received by it from appellant - Bank could not have any independent information in that behalf - Several columns which were material for purpose of entering into a contract of insurance were left blank - A marine insurance policy requires an implied warranty of seaworthiness as is evident from Sub-section (3) of Section 41 of the Marine Insurance Act, 1963 which governs the terms of a contract of insurance – Even though notice dated 9.11.1981 repudiating claim did not contain any details in regard to purported misrepresentation of material facts but the same was not decisive - It was for plaintiff not only to plead but also establish that the vessel in question was seaworthy - The terms of contract of insurance, being governed by provisions of a statute; non-disclosure of such material facts would render policy repudiable - Even according to DW-1, necessary particulars were not furnished to him by the plaintiff - Where there has been a suppression of fact, acceptance of policy by an officer of insurance company would not be binding on it - High Court, having regard to statutory provisions, rightly held that plaintiff suppressed material fact - Moreover, in view of statutory rules, court had no other option but to hold that vessel was not seaworthy - No infirmity found in impugned judgment - Appeal dismissed. (Paras 16 to 18)

       Facts of the case:-

       1.Appellant owner of a sea vessel obtained a loan form Canara Bank herein in the instant case. At time of sanction of loan, Bank Obtained an insurance policy from respondent1 in respect of said vessel. Vessel was insured on 12.4.1979 to cover period form 12-4-1979 to 12-04-1980. Policy was later on renewed for period 12-04-1980 and 11–4 –1981. Vessel sunk on 21-07-1980. Claim by Appellant was repudiated by Respondent 1. Suit by appellant was decreed by Single Judge of High Court inter alia on premise that one “H” who was agent of insurer and who had filled in form, kept blanks therein for which Bank could not be held responsible. Appeal there against was allowed by High Court.

       2.Present Appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.

       Findings of the Court :

       The Court held that any information which could be furnished by Bank to insurer was only on basis of information received by it from appellant. Bank could not have any independent information in that behalf. Several columns which were material for purpose of entering into a contract of insurance were left blank. A marine insurance policy requires an implied warranty of seaworthiness as is evident from Sub-section (3) of Section 41 of the Marine Insurance Act, 1963 which governs the terms of a contract of insurance. Even though notice dated 9.11.1981 repudiating claim did not contain any details in regard to purported misrepresentation of material facts but the same was not decisive. It was for plaintiff not only to plead but also establish that the vessel in question was seaworthy. The terms of contract of insurance, being governed by provisions of a statute; non-disclosure of such material facts would render policy repudiable. Even according to DW-1, necessary particulars were not furnished to him by the plaintiff. Where there has been a suppression of fact, acceptance of policy by an officer of insurance company would not be binding on it. High Court, having regard to statutory provisions, rightly held that plaintiff suppressed material fact. Moreover, in view of statutory rules, the court would have no other option but to hold that vessel was not seaworthy. No infirmity was found in impugned judgment. Appeal was dismissed.

       Result: Appeal dismissed.